Policy on Appeals of Editorial Decisions
Archives of Hospital Medicine (eISSN: XXXX-XXXX, pISSN: XXXX-XXXX) (Arch Hosp Med)
1.0 Preamble
The Archives of Hospital Medicine is committed to a fair, transparent, and rigorous editorial process. While the journal strives to make sound and final editorial decisions, we acknowledge that authors may, on rare occasions, have legitimate grounds to contest a decision. This policy establishes a formal and structured mechanism for appealing editorial decisions, ensuring that such appeals are handled consistently, impartially, and efficiently. The appeals process is intended as a safeguard for exceptional circumstances and not as a routine step following an undesired outcome.
2.0 Scope and Eligibility
An appeal may only be considered under the following specific conditions:
- Manuscript Status: Appeals are only available for manuscripts that have undergone the full peer-review process and have subsequently been rejected or given a revision decision that the author wishes to formally contest. Manuscripts rejected through an initial desk rejection (outright rejection by the editorial team without peer review) are not eligible for appeal. Common reasons for desk rejection include, but are not limited to, being outside the journal's scope, failing to meet basic formatting or ethical guidelines, or having significant methodological flaws evident upon initial screening.
- Appellant: The appeal must be submitted by the Corresponding Author of the manuscript. The Corresponding Author must confirm that all co-authors have agreed to the submission of the appeal.
- Timeliness: The appeal must be submitted within a strict deadline of one (1) calendar month from the date of the original decision communication received by the authors.
3.0 Grounds for Appeal
An appeal must be based on substantive, specific, and evidence-based grounds. The journal will not reconsider a decision based solely on a difference of scientific opinion or a general dissatisfaction with the outcome.
Valid grounds for an appeal may include:
- Factual Errors in Review: The author provides clear evidence that a reviewer or the editor made a significant factual error in their assessment of the manuscript (e.g., misstating the methodology or results reported).
- Substantiation of Claims: The author can demonstrate that critical reviewer or editor comments were addressed in the original manuscript but were overlooked, and the author can provide specific point-by-point responses with supporting evidence (e.g., page and line numbers).
- Potential Bias or Conflict of Interest: The author provides specific and credible evidence suggesting a tangible bias or an undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of a reviewer or the handling editor.
Grounds That Are Not Considered Valid for Appeal:
- Disagreement with the journal's judgment regarding the novelty, interest level, or priority of the findings.
- Disagreement with the editorial judgment on the suitability of the manuscript for the journal's aims and scope.
- Rejection due to non-compliance with the journal's publishing policies (e.g., authorship, ethics, formatting).
- A simple request for a second opinion without providing specific grounds as outlined above.
4.0 Appeal Submission Procedure
To initiate a formal appeal, the Corresponding Author must:
- Submit a Formal Appeal Letter: The appeal must be sent via email to the journal's editorial office (the email address can be found on the journal's homepage).
- Use a Specific Subject Line: The subject line of the email must read: "APPEAL - [Manuscript ID Number]" (e.g., "APPEAL - JPCM-2024-123").
- Adhere to Content Requirements: The appeal letter must be a comprehensive document that includes:
- A clear statement that it is an appeal of the editorial decision.
- The manuscript title and ID number.
- A detailed, point-by-point rebuttal of the reviewers' and/or editor's comments, providing scientific reasoning and evidence for each point of contention.
- A clear explanation of which valid ground(s) for appeal (as per Section 3.0) the case falls under, supported by specific evidence.
- Confirmation that all co-authors have agreed to the appeal.
Appeal requests that do not comply with these procedural requirements will be administratively rejected and will not be processed.
5.0 Process During Appeal Consideration
Upon submission of a valid appeal:
- Exclusive Consideration: The manuscript must not be submitted to any other journal, nor should the author initiate a transfer process to another journal, while the appeal is under consideration. Doing so will result in the immediate termination of the appeal.
- Withdrawal of Appeal: The Corresponding Author may withdraw the appeal at any time by sending an email to the same address with the subject line: "APPEAL WITHDRAWAL - [Manuscript ID Number]".
6.0 Appeal Assessment and Adjudication
The journal is committed to an impartial assessment of all appeals.
- Adjudicating Body: The appeal will be handled by an individual or body with the appropriate authority and independence. Typically, this will be:
- The Editor-in-Chief, if they were not directly involved in the initial decision.
- The Associate Editor in Chief or a designated member of the Editorial Board.
- In cases where the appeal alleges bias or a conflict of interest against the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor, the appeal will be managed by the Associate Editor in Chief or a member of the publisher's ethics committee to ensure complete impartiality.
- Assessment Criteria: The adjudicating body will evaluate the appeal based on the journal's policies, scope, and the specific evidence provided by the author. They may also seek independent advice from additional editorial board members or new reviewers.
- Timeline: The time required for a thorough consideration of an appeal varies depending on the complexity of the scientific issues, the availability of adjudicators, and the need for additional review. The journal will endeavor to process all appeals in a timely manner, and the Corresponding Author will be kept informed of significant delays.
7.0 Potential Outcomes
The journal will notify the Corresponding Author of the final decision regarding the appeal. Possible outcomes include:
- Appeal Upheld: The original decision is overturned. The manuscript will be re-entered into the editorial process, which may involve a new round of peer review (by previous or new reviewers) and a requirement for substantive revision. Please note: An upheld appeal does not guarantee eventual acceptance; it only guarantees a reconsideration of the manuscript.
- Appeal Rejected: The original decision is confirmed as final. The manuscript file will be closed, and no further correspondence on the matter will be entered into.
8.0 Finality and Limitations
- One Appeal Per Manuscript: Only one appeal will be considered for any given manuscript submission.
- Decision is Final: The outcome of the appeal process is final and binding. There is no further mechanism for appeal beyond this point.
- Legal Disputes: The journal is unable to consider or will suspend any appeal if the subject matter of the manuscript becomes part of an active legal dispute.
